Category Archives: Section 103

Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?

Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading

Posted in Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Parenteau – PTAB Skips Step One of the Mayo/Alice Test?

In ex parte Ho, the subject of my last post, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims to a population of bone marrow cells obtained by two-stage culturing that expressed or failed to express certain markers. The PTAB wrote … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex Parte Galloway – Berkheimer Meet s. 103 Part II

In Ex parte Galloway, Appeal No. 2017-004696 (PTAB, May 24, 2018), the Board reversed the examiner’s rejections of claims to a method of diagnosing bladder cancer. The method comprised isolating cells from the urine of a subject, dispersing at least … Continue reading

Posted in PTAB, Section 103 | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment